Aug 7, 2007

Catholic writer Brian Mershon makes a great "Now, why didn't I think of that?" point in a lengthy article of his (click on this post's title) at renewamerica.us

He writes that for pastors who worry about Catholics attending SSPX Masses, the pastoral thing to do would be to offer parish Tridentine Mass so the people will stay home in their parishes.

Here is the relevant passage:

"As such, the question needs to be raised: what does the Church officially teach about Catholics who attend SSPX chapels out of spiritual necessity with no desire whatsoever to separate themselves from full communion? In Fr. Newman's July 8, 2007 sermon at St. Mary's, he reportedly repeated that the SSPX is in schism, directly counter to what the Church teaches, as Cardinal Castrillón has repeatedly said in numerous public interviews.

"The immediate question that comes to mind to a faithful Catholic is that if this is truly happening — Catholics being led out of 'full communion,' or in the traditional ecclesiology, 'out of the Church' — then wouldn't it be an act of pastoral solicitude on the part of Fr. Newman to offer his parishioners a 'wide and generous application' of the Traditional Roman rite on a regular basis in order to keep his flock in 'full communion' as Pope John Paul II requested 19 years ago [in his Ecclesia Dei]?"

Pretty obvious, when you think about it.

Reverend pastors in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, you now have a fine way to keep your parishioners from going SSPX: Starting Sept. 14, give them the Mass previously denied them. What say you?

36 Comments:

Brian Mershon is wrong. Fr Newman is right. The SSPX leaders are indeed in schism. According to Ecclesia Dei, a decree by Pope John Paul II Archbishop Lefebvres ordination of bishops constituted a schismatic act incurring excommunication. There are no lay SSPX members as such. But adherence and support of the SSPX can lead to latae sentiae excommunication per the Pope. The desire to attend a Tridentine Rite mass does not justify attending a schismatic mass.

I still don't see why anyone thinks there is any need for Cardinal Mahony to weigh-in on the "Tridentine" Mass. After all, the Holy Father has left it up to parish priests to respond to requests for the 1962 usage, pretty much making diocesan bishops mediators if a pastoral problem arises.

Since Cardinal Mahony hasn't said anything, we can fall back on that old principle of law so dear to St. Thomas More: "Silence connotes consent."

Mershon didn't quote Ecclesia Dei. That's the problem. What Pope John Paul II and Canon Law say is what's relevant.

" In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law." (Ecclesia Dei)

A pope and Canon Law trumps a journalist, priest or bishop's opinion any day. At least he does if one is a Catholic.

Dear Quintero,Since permission from the bishop will no longer be required, I don't see the need for the bishop to say anything at all (unless of course he wants to). When the directives of the Holy Father become operational next month and, if and when some problem arises, then the Holy Father expects the bishop to intervene. But nothing in Smmorum Pontificum asks bishops to say or do anything lacking such a circumstance.

I think you have some contributors who just like to take swipes at the cardinal.

I am the "anonymous" who first commented on Mahony's silence. It is true I am no fan of our archbishop, and I think the archdiocese would heal much faster if he resigned. I am, however, a realist, and do not expect that to happen. I do believe that it would be a sign of support and a gesture of His Eminence's good will towards traditional catholics if he were to issue a statement which showed his active support for the motu proprio - perhaps a TLM at the cathedral for All Saint's Day or another major feast.

It would help pastors and the faithful to know their bishop was actively supporting the Pope's agenda in the LA archdiocese. I know it is not required by the motu proprio, but it would be helpful.

Still, as I said, I'm a realist, and I don't expect a statement any time soon from the cardinal. He has bigger fish to fry, like trying to decide what to sell and what programs to shut down to pay off the legal settlements.

Dear Quintero,I'm the "anonymous" who thinks you have contributors who just like to take swipes at Cardinal Roger Mahony.

I am glad the other "anonymous" is a realist. Far more good would be accomplished if pastors were to work more assiduously implementing "Gather Faithfully Together" but have you noticed that the cardinal has not made an issue out of that either?

When the Vicar of Christ makes an epochal move such as he has with Summorum Pontificum, a move that many bishops in the USA and around the world dislike, it is totally reasonable for L.A. Catholics to expect their Ordinary to express his willingness to obey the Pope.

The Cardinal has expressed his willingness to disobey in the past -- when he allowed girl altar boys and said, "While we currently do not have permission..."

Now he could signify obedience, if he only would.

Summorum Pontificum is from the Holy Father himself. The document by Cardinal Mahony that you mention, "Gather Faithfully Together," is the product of one bishop and carries less weight.

I have not read it, but here is a commentary from a 1997 Adoremus Bulletin on that document (sorry the link is not clickable here):

Dear Quintero,The Pope doesn't ask bishops, per se, to be generous about the "Tridentine" Mass. The decision is up to the pastor and he asks pastors to be as generous as they can be. The Pope clearly puts the bishop in position of mediator in disputes.( I don't anticipate that there will be much need for the "Tridentine" Mass at the cardinal's cathedral church--most TMers seem to hate the cathedral.)

It doesn't take any special training or language skills for a priest to celebrate Mass for Catholic homosexuals or the divorced or anyone else except the TMers...even the Pope noted that the priest would have to be competent in Latin and familiar with the 1962 Missal and its rubrics. (I remember one older priest saying that he welcomed the Mass of Pope Paul VI because the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., was more complicaated than a Japanese Tea Ceremony!)

I hate to be argumentative, but there is quite a legitimate Spirit of Vatican II. That abuses and excesses have occurred and then justified as having been "in the Spirit of Vatican" cannot be denied, but this does not negate the reality of the Spirit of Vatican II.

Some examples: Pope John Paul II apologizing to those who have been hurt and offended by members of the Church was in the Spirit of Vatican II; the interfaith Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi was in the Spirit of Vatican II; ecumenical and inter-faith gatherings such as the one held in the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels on the anniversary of 9/11 are in the spirit of Vatican II; various expressions of the New Evangelization (and evangelization sans proselytism) are in the Spirit of Vatican II.

I was talking about exactly the abuses and excesses you mention, not anything legitimate that resulted from the Council.

It wasn't sheer coincidence that caused millions to flee the Church, the priesthood, the convents and the seminaries after and even during Vatican II; it was the non-existent "spirit of Vatican II," the false spirit of abuses, excesses and lies, the spirit of the world.

The L.A. Cathedral is a liturgical abuse in and of itself. It would be a sin for the Tridentine Mass to be said there. There is absolutely no surprise that Rog wouldn't say anything about the Motu Proprio, once you've seen the atrocity thatreplaced the venerable St. Vibiana's.

Dear Quintero,Some of your criticisms of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels can be leveled at any one of the major churches of the world that draws tourists on a regular basis.

One cannot gaze on the tabernacle in St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, for example, when Mass is celebrated on the Papal Altar or at the Altar of the Chair.

And there are many many people wandering around and talking when you visit St. Peter's or Notre Dame in Paris or any of the other great cathedrals.

One of the things I love about the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is that everything is accessible...the altar, the ambo, the cathedra, the baptismal font, etc. Whereas other churches and cathedrals denote sacred space by ropes and gates and rails, our cathedral says that the entire church is sacred space and that the people are sacred, too.

You love the L.A. Cathedral. That explains a few things about your comments. No one with any sense at all likes the LA Cathedral, and that is the truth. I would be anonymous if I were you too. I will pray that you someday regain a love of beauty.

Dear Killian,Great name! A fanous church in Farmingdale, Long Island, NY, is called St. Killian's. It was renowned for its boy choir when I was a kid and lived in a neighboring parish.

I love many, many churches and cathedrals throughout the world, built in many different architectural styles.

My all-time favorites are the French Gothic churches and cathedrals. To my mind, the most beautiful Gothic church in the world is the abbatial church of St-Ouen in Rouen, France.

I love Gothic revival churches, too, and have a special love for St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. I also like Ste-Clothilde in Paris.

The Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome is another favorite, as is the Brompton Oratory in London.

In the Los Angeles area, I appreciate modern churches such as the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels and St. Basil Church. But I also especially like more traditional churches such as St. Andrew in Pasadena, St. Monica in Santa Monica, St. Paul in South L.A., St. Anthony in Long Beach, St. Charles Borromeo in North Hollywood, etc.

My being anonymous has nothing to do with my tastes in art and architecture. It has to do with privacy.

Thank you for the "tour" of your favorite churches and cathedrals here in Los Angeles and abroad.

I do think the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels needs quite a bit of remodeling before many Angeleno Catholics, including myself, would ever consider adding it to a list of favorites!

A good way of praying, which probably we all do sometimes, is to recall the tabernacles, altars and sanctuaries of the favorite churches in our lives and to make a mental visit to Jesus there. We can also pray for all the priests we have known as we remember their Masses in those holy places. Amen!

Dear Quintero,The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels already has achieved widespread acceptance and devotion from millions. I personally have taken people there who were predisposed to dislike it and who consequently fell in love with its beauties after having seen them for themselves. And the cathedral will continue to engender awe and appreciation, as all great churches due, long after you and I are dust.

(By the way, the cathedral's website mentions the cathedral's role as a liturgical model for all the churches in a diocese because that's part of the Church's teaching on a cathedral's raison d'etre.)

Thank you for the information. But something can be beautiful and yet convey a wrong or misleading liturgical and theological message.

Also -- thanks to the near-total ban on, and badmouthing of, the Latin Mass in the past 40 years, some Catholics are "predisposed to dislike" the Latin Mass. But if we introduce them to it fairly and fully, we can be sure that many or most of them will "f[a]ll in love with its beauties after having seen them for themselves."

I mean that seriously and with respect for everyone who "sees no need" for the Latin Mass.

If you think people won't like the Latin Mass, give it a fair trial and let the people "vote" on it.

Dear Q,I'm one who wishes that Pope Paul VI had abrogated the "Tridentine" Mass (and, in fact, believed he had done so until Pope Benedict XVI stated otherwise). I believe that the motu propio is a mistake and that the fears the Holy Father dismissed in his covering letter to the bishops will, in fact, materialize. (We'll have to wait and see what the landscape looks like three years from now when bishops are to report back to the Holy See.)

But since the Pope wants people to have access to the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., in its 1962 version, I say, "so be it." I think the vast majority of Catholics will come to appreciate the Mass of Pope Paul VI even more when they see how far we have come liturgically, for as the Pope reminds us, the Mass of Pope Paul VI is a development, not a rupture, in the Church's liturgical continuum.

Hello my name is Andrew. I am an acolyte at St. Mary of the Angels in Hollywood. I have a question to ask. Do you believe that the new Mass instituted of Paul VI. With the spirit of the counsel fathers of Vatican II, or any writings of the documents of the counsel intended,mandated,or officialy ordered any change in the rubrics. specifically for the priest to face the people for the entire mass? also for altars to be broken down and replaced with tables. Tabernacles moved out of the center and to the side, and many various other changes and variations of the Mass?

About Me

Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.